[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Work in progress (was : [gnugo-devel] a patch from a newbie :))
From: |
Arend Bayer |
Subject: |
Re: Work in progress (was : [gnugo-devel] a patch from a newbie :)) |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Sep 2002 00:40:36 +0200 (CEST) |
Hi,
wow, impressive list...
> - added 2 new move reasons
> OWL_ATTACK_MOVE_GAIN
> OWL_DEFENSE_MOVE_LOSS
> The associated .what field references the biggest affected _worm_
> - added 2 new fields in the dragon_data structure :
> int owl_attack_kworm;
> int owl_defense_kworm;
> which account for the (k)illed worm in case of GAIN/LOSS
> attack/defense codes
> - added supporting code in :
> dragon.c :
> make_dragons()
> move_reasons.c
> get_pos()
> owl_attack_move_reason_known()
> owl_defense_move_reason_known()
I am not sure you should add code here. These are mostly used to e.g.
forget the strategic effect of a STRATEGIC_DEFEND_MOVE if we have
already counted the move as an owl defense (otherwise we would count the
effect twice). But if it's a OWL_DEFENSE_MOVE_LOSS, we should probably
still count the strategic effect.
> get_biggest_owl_target()
> add_owl_attack_move()
> add_owl_defense_move()
> get_saved_worms()
> mark_changed_dragon()
> list_move_reasons()
> owl.c
> owl_attack() needs a supplementary parameter
> do_owl_attack()
> owl_defend() needs a supplementary parameter
> owl_reasons()
> owl_confirm_safety()
> catalog_goal() has been resurrected
> value_moves.c
> examine_move_safety()
> estimate_territorial_value()
Just to understand what you are doing: Did you explicitly add the
effective worm size to the territorial value? (The other option would be
to have the worm marked as critical/captured/defended for evaluation by
influence.c).
> * There are plenty small FIXMEs left behind, specially in play_gtp.c and
> sgfdecide.c. I guess the tracing macros also would possibly need an
> update...
> [Of course, I'm willing to do the dirty job, but I'd prefer first to
> know if there's any chance for this patch to get in the CVS]
Well, I cannot speak for Dan and Gunnar, but it looks like a clear
improvement, so I'd just say go ahead with it.
> * Almost forgot another TODO: I haven't looked at the move reasons
> discarding mechanism.
I don't expect you have to touch that. (Depending on details of your
patch I could imagine adding a case there, though.)
> PS: damn, that's a lot of work, for deceptively few PASSes... oh well, I'm
> having fun here, so... :)
I always think getting some PASSes by doing s.th. right is worth more
than PASSes by (say) some tuning that could turn out badly in other
situations :)
Arend